The one thing we can absolutely be sure of is that this dispicable con-man will do all that he can to enrich himself, without regard for any limiting principle or structural restraint.
Its not a question of "if" he "may" be corrupt, but only how brazen the supposed patriots in the Republican party will let him be as he does it.
Thats not really what happens, unless you're so toxic that old-twitter would actually ban you.
Bsky has a "nuclear block", that essentially removes you and the target from even existing on the version of the site each other see. If you're ok with just talking to folk who are on your side of a "no, shutup" line, like "trans women are women" or "trans is a mental disorder" you'll be fine.
The issue is that a bunch of folk who abscribe to the second apparently just want to troll the first, so they get blocked by their targets, have no fun, and then complain to reporters still on twitter.
Nbcnews linked to a report by the college board, that look like it tracls the relative cost of college all the way back to 1994 - - ten years after Regan's fuckery, and at least 20 yeara too short to show a real drop. And the drop they show is over only about 4 years.
Today's students were raised by a generation who lived through crippling debt, and see no reason not to expect tuition to skyrocket over the nexr few years.
Not to mention "tuition and fees" ignores the absurd cost of housing.
Ignoring Bernie for the moment, "against the working class" is usually a dogwhistle for "poor whites have racial nervousness and i want to exacerbate that for political gain.". You wont find real examples because, generally, professional democrats arent against anyone. (even nazis, apparently.)
Bernie's specific crtique was a slightly tone-deaf critique that the dems were largely silent on the economic nervousness of the working class, and instead spend political capital fighting for racial and gender equality. Since the white male working class is not oppressed by race or gender, or in a position to really oppress anyone, they often feel unrepresented.
Please understand that "nothing" means the built up surplus runs out and there will be not enough money to pay all benefits.
The smart and easy fix would be to raise the cap on ss taxes while flattening the "you deserve more money because you made more money when you were working" weirdness.
Instead, they'll likely either do nothing and force the dems to fix it in four years, play with benefits to make the poor suffer, or try and replace it with a phased in 401k style stock market scam.
(that last option, btw, is killing social security.)
Depending on your state that's probably true... Unless, like Georgia (or maybe Texas soon) you have an even where a Red-controlled state goes Blue by a thin majority and the NPV keeps special attention away from them.
I can honestly see Texas republicans joining the NPV if they go POTUS-blue just once. Especially if there's any downballot effect.
When the NPVC goes into effect, both major parties will run whole-country campaigns and swaths of the nation that are currently ignored will get actual attention. While some states may have pullback campaigns, its also likely that other states will react by joining the compact to preserve the new status quo of not being ignored.
(the compact itself does allow for states leaving, and even sets a nice 6-month time offset. )
One of the major parties in the USA knows that they are able to get power only because the 1929 Apportionment act artificially buouys the power of less populous states in the House and by extension the electoral college. The other one is just fine with actual proportional representation.
Not t metion that the EC doesn't encourage presidential candidates to campaign nationwide: most states are ignored, and focus is on the minority of swing states.
(and Lincoln had a clear plurality of the popular vote. He woukd have won a national vote too.)
In common commercial english, i would read that as "this merchant will offer to trade any of the books for an amoumt of currency equal to half the book's cover price plus $1."
Such vagueness also suggests sufficient informality that the merchant may either accept seperate offers or veto the general rule on a case-by-case basis.
In order to blame the bad actions of the United States for the "polycrisis", you really need to excuse all of the bad actions of everyone else.
To pick a timely issue : blaming the USA for the actions of Israel in their* Gaza territory we would need to excuse Israel for the actions of Israel.
If a general strike would have any effect id support it, but the target should be the specific actions of our country rather than the actions of other sovereign nations.
(*: If the govt of israel does not recognize a distinct Palestinian state, and the pseudo-governments of Palestine cannot exert sovereign control to keep Israel out, then Palestine is [unjustly] and [occupied] territory of Israel.)
Bail is not money you get back. It's money that a bail bondsman doesn't have to fork over if you dont show.
Either you are so rich that the opportunity cost of tieing up the whole amount is more than the fee (so you just pay the bond fee) or you don't have enough and need to ask someone to lend it to yoy (that is, you pay the bond.)
New York tried to largely ban cash bail (becaue its essentially just a way to lock up the poor), but because of Republicans and police unions (i repeat myself) who whined about offenses while out on bail, the state poked a bunch of holes in it instead of making pre-trial detention easier.
Cash bail is ALWAYS indefensible. If someone is so dangerous to civic order they need to be detained pre-trial, then no amount of money should get them out of it.
Did you just intend to endorse organ harvesting and grave robbing?
And, if you want tax reform capital gains aren't your target, but instead "unrealized gains". A billionare pledging stock to back a loan should pay tax on their whole net worth's increass in value first.
So, you're asking if there is a shoplifter whose small-dollar.spree was stopped by target, who was then arrested by the police, who then refused an initial plea offer from the DA, who was then charged by a grand jury, refused a pre-trial plea offer, went to trial, refused the pre-verdict plea offer, and was then found guilty?
Well, what about someone who hit 60k over 120 visits?
Is there a particilar part of a lecture about chimpanzee mating habits that you think especially buttress sexism? If not, just referring to a whole video as a reference is just a gish galllp through citation.
Except that it ISNT self-evident. There are plenty of mammals with no apparent bias as to which sex is more prone to violence, more if you exclude the minority of mammals where only one sex has a natural weapon.
You might have a slightly better case if we were just talking primates. But not by a lot.
The one thing we can absolutely be sure of is that this dispicable con-man will do all that he can to enrich himself, without regard for any limiting principle or structural restraint.
Its not a question of "if" he "may" be corrupt, but only how brazen the supposed patriots in the Republican party will let him be as he does it.